The Compensation For Mental Damages In Breach Of Contract

It is unanimously agreed that we should give juridical succour to emotional damages caused by infringement.But there are two opposite opinions about whether we should give compensation for emotional damage caused by breach of contrat. Both The Tort Law of the People's Republic of China and Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Problems regarding the Ascertainment of Compensation Liability for Emotional Damages in Civil Torts insist that only emotional damages caused by infringement can get compensation. The author is of the opinion that all kinds of emotional damages should get compensation, no matter it is caused by infringement or breach of contrat. It is the need of fair and righteous legal sense,and the requirement of real life.The paper is composed of four parts except introduction and conclusion.In the first part,the author review the main reasons of the negation. In order to prive that the negation is unreasonable, the author boxed the compass of negation in this article.The second part is about the review of other countries'legislation. In this part, the article main introduce Common Law system and Civil Law system and some international convention in turn. It is well konwn that English Law and American Law are typical of common law system, this part frist introduce theirs'transformation about compensation for emotional damage caused by breach of contrat.Then,it is France Law and Germany Law,that are known as typical of Civil Law system.Finally, it is about two typical international convention.The third part proposes that only emotional damages conforming to specific conditions could get compensation.The conditions include:the facts,the behavior and causality between the facts and the behavior.In the fourth part,the paper points out it is necessary to limit the application of compensation for emotional damage in contract. The emphasis is on the rule of foreseeability. The non-performing party is liable only for harm which it foresaw or could reasonably have foreseen at the time of the conclusion of the contract as being likely to result from its non-performance.